OTTAWA — The lawyer who advised Stephen Harper during the RCMP’s investigation into Sen. Mike Duffy’s senate expense claims has launched an extraordinary defence of the former prime minister’s actions and ethics and suggests authorities now need to hold Duffy to account outside of criminal court.

[np_storybar title=”Robert Staley: This was not about Mike Duffy vs. Stephen Harper” link=””] Commencing in mid-2013, I represented former prime minister Stephen Harper in connection with the RCMP’s investigation of Senator Duffy. So long as Mr. Duffy was facing criminal charges, my client, and anyone acting on his behalf, was prevented by the sub judice rule from making statements that could prejudice court proceedings, including statements speaking to the merits of the allegations. Now that Justice Vaillancourt has released his trial decision, it is possible to comment publicly on aspects of the case.

From the outset, we were instructed by our client to assist the RCMP in its investigation. This assistance included making available to the RCMP extensive PMO documentation, principally emails, and facilitating the interviews of PMO witnesses requested by the RCMP. An early decision was made by our client to waive lawyer/client privilege so that all PMO documents relevant to Mr. Duffy, including those reflecting contemporaneous legal advice, were available to the RCMP.

Staley says Harper acted with utmost rectitude during the affair, and portrays him as a victim who paid a heavy political price for the events within the PMO that Valliancourt denounced as “mind-boggling and shocking.”

“From the outset, we were instructed by our client (Harper) to assist the RCMP in its investigation,” Staley writes. “Although this decision was politically inexpedient, it was the right thing to do and was an unequivocal act of integrity and accountability by the prime minister.”

Staley could not be reached Tuesday and it is not known what role, if any, Harper had in authorizing or approving the article or contributing to Staley’s assertions.

“It was our client’s position that Mr. Duffy was constitutionally qualified to sit as a senator,” representing Prince Edward Island, Staley continues. “At the same time, our client held the position that Mr. Duffy’s living-expense claims were politically unacceptable and must be repaid, whether or not they were technically permissible under applicable Senate rules. “

Staley takes particular offence at suggestions Harper may have somehow influenced the government’s decision to charge Duffy with 31 counts of fraud, breach of trust and bribery.

“Contrary to the views expressed by some commentators, no one could believe that my client’s interests were served by criminal charges against Mr. Duffy that were certain to play out through the 2015 federal election.

“My client played no role in the decision to charge Mr. Duffy.”

In fact, Staley says he told Harper that he seriously doubted the charge against Duffy of accepting an alleged $90,000 bribe from Harper’s chief of staff, Nigel Wright, would ever prevail in court.

“Of course, in Canada, the prime minister cannot influence criminal charges, so my private views remained just that, and were shared only with my client.”

Harper’s assertion was, and is, that the behaviour exhibited by Duffy was unacceptable, Staley writes. “It was and is my client’s view that public office demands a higher standard than conduct that falls short of criminality.”

Staley concludes his defence of Harper by suggesting federal auditor general Michael Ferguson “is likely” to launch a non-criminal review of Duffy’s senate travel and housing claims. (Ferguson’s office did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.)

“Outside of the courtroom, my client stood to account for the ethical behaviour of his organization. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how this responsibility could have been borne any more acutely. But in the context of continued institutional integrity, it has never been more important for authorities that can hold individuals to account, to live up to their duty and define the consequence of behaviour that falls short of criminal.”

Vaillancourt’s 308-page judgment did not question or find fault with any of Harper’s actions during the affair. But the judge levelled several blistering critiques at Wright and the PMO for its “calculated pressure, inducements and threats and directed, solely for political reasons, toward the political protection of the government of prime minister Harper and the prime minister.”

Almost Done!

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.